Are EPA emission standards relevant?

[ENGRX2]

We are trying to make sense out of the EPA emission standards for recreational vessels. Apparently anything after 1999 is not grandfathered in and you "can" be required to bring your vessel into compliance. There's a complex matrix of Tier 1, 2, 3 ,and 4 based on engine year and usage. Has anybody made sense of this requirement? If the Feds began enforcing these regulations, how badly would the resale market get hurt?

What started me down this rat hole is what is happening locally to small commercial boats (California poised to impose wave of boat emissions rules in 2022). But apparently it is the same rule that applies to recreational boats. --I hope I am wrong.

 

[O C Diver]

It's a non issue. No recreational vessel needs to be brought into compliance. The only compliance issue is if repowering. The tier levels refer to emissions. Any vessel built in this century would be required to have the appropriate tier level for that year. If repowering, you would only be required to use the same tier level engine.

Ted

 

[Comodave]

They are more concerned with commercial because the hours they rack up.

 

[ENGRX2]

Not to get technical here, but does anyone know where the exemption for recreational is found in the code?

 

[BroadCove]

I am not expert on this subject, but my company and career is focused on policy engagement with government. I don't know that there is a "recreational exemption" per se. Regardless, the general rule is that new laws / regulations are prospective unless made retroactive. So, although there is no "grandfather" after 1999, there is also no requirement to bring older recreational vessels / engines into compliance with the newer rules. The vessel / engine is required to comply with the law / rules which were in effect at the time the vessel / engine was put into service. There is no federal requirement that the vessel / engine be made after the fact to comply with newer / more stringent standards. As best I can tell, all of this hinges on the definition of "new marine engine"; as long as your vessel / engine was compliant when new, it is compliant (federally) forever, absent "remanufacture" as defined. For reference: Federal Register :: Request Access. With regard to CA, the state frequently seeks to impose or imposes emissions rules that exceed federal requirements. I don't know if the juice would be worth the squeeze in this specific area (requiring modifications to extant recreational marine engines), though.

 

[ENGRX2]

Thanks for your expertise. That is very useful information. Your link does have a definition for recreational marine engines. But I too don't see a flat exemption either. The closest I have found is the chart below from the EPA website (Marine Engine and Vessel Program Applicability | US EPA) that kind of morphs several aspects into one chart (wish they would have put code sections in each box).

So based on what you have said, I think the conclusion is (1) Marine engines that are EPA compliant when built will stay complaint even if the standards are made tighter. And (2) engines that were built prior to 1999 are exempt.

The California rule (original post) could affect a primarily recreational boat owner that leases their boat to a buddy on occasion. Or, there are a bunch of folks that charter to help defray cost of ownership. They too could be swept up in this new rule. Since the rule is retroactive, seems like it violates ex post facto clauses in the Constitution. But that can only be dealt with in the courts.

 

[BroadCove]

I agree with your conclusions (1) and (2); in short, I don't think you (or any of us) have anything to worry about.

Note that the Constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws applies only in the context of criminal law, not civil law. The federal government and state governments do make civil laws retroactive all the time, and the courts generally uphold such laws. For reference, see US v Carlton (United States v. Carlton, 512 U.S. 26 (1994)). That is not relevant here in that the EPA marine diesel emissions standards are not retroactive, but just FYI re ex post facto laws and limitations.

 

[mvweebles]

We are trying to make sense out of the EPA emission standards for recreational vessels. Apparently anything after 1999 is not grandfathered in and you "can" be required to bring your vessel into compliance.

Where did you see this requirement? The linked article is not related to this statement.

I read the article. It's 3-years old and discussed proposed regulation at that time. Was it ever approved? The intent was quite clear - commercial vessels only. And there would be funding to assist with upgrades. There is precedent for this very narrow action in California - 30-years ago CARB sought to decommission the WW2 era fishing boats and purchased many to be destroyed. There was no scope creep into non-commercial vessels.

If there was a requirement to proactively meet current emissions say, for cars, every old and classic car in California would be at risk. Where do you stop? I'm sure a brand new 2025 model has less emissions than a 2020 model.....granted its California, but still seems like a stretch

Peter

 

[ENGRX2]

I agree with your conclusions (1) and (2); in short, I don't think you (or any of us) have anything to worry about.

Note that the Constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws applies only in the context of criminal law, not civil law. The federal government and state governments do make civil laws retroactive all the time, and the courts generally uphold such laws. For reference, see US v Carlton (United States v. Carlton, 512 U.S. 26 (1994)). That is not relevant here in that the EPA marine diesel emissions standards are not retroactive, but just FYI re ex post facto laws and limitations.

Thanks, looked briefly at the case abstract. ---I think ex post facto is my wishful thinking and I agree that is a hard argument to make. Apparently the courts have ruled in favor of the government when the ex post facto argument is made on tighter EPA standards. As I understand it from a layman's point of view, the excess pollution from an old standard is occurring in the present day making the individual liable now. Fortunately the CA law comes with incentives and a 10 year extension from 2035; there is a recognition even for the commercial sector that it is a high bar. So I think it is fair to conclude as you said that the juice is not worth the squeeze for recreational boaters.

 

[ENGRX2]

Where did you see this requirement? The linked article is not related to this statement.

I read the article. It's 3-years old and discussed proposed regulation at that time. Was it ever approved? The intent was quite clear - commercial vessels only. And there would be funding to assist with upgrades. There is precedent for this very narrow action in California - 30-years ago CARB sought to decommission the WW2 era fishing boats and purchased many to be destroyed. There was no scope creep into non-commercial vessels.

If there was a requirement to proactively meet current emissions say, for cars, every old and classic car in California would be at risk. Where do you stop? I'm sure a brand new 2025 model has less emissions than a 2020 model.....granted its California, but still seems like a stretch

Peter

Here's the new regulation announcement: CARB passes amendments to commercial harbor craft regulation | California Air Resources Board.

I had the same concerns and that is what motivated the post. There is always regulation creep and what may have started as a reasonable standard gets worse for the owner. My concern was the migration to recreational boats and even "minor commercial" where you loan a boat to a friend and they pay you for the "loan."

 

[OldDan1943]

I have a 2008 AT. I am not worried. So long as my boat is in useable condition, the USCG will leave me alone

 

[ENGRX2]

Where did you see this requirement? The linked article is not related to this statement.

I read the article. It's 3-years old and discussed proposed regulation at that time. Was it ever approved? The intent was quite clear - commercial vessels only. And there would be funding to assist with upgrades. There is precedent for this very narrow action in California - 30-years ago CARB sought to decommission the WW2 era fishing boats and purchased many to be destroyed. There was no scope creep into non-commercial vessels.

If there was a requirement to proactively meet current emissions say, for cars, every old and classic car in California would be at risk. Where do you stop? I'm sure a brand new 2025 model has less emissions than a 2020 model.....granted its California, but still seems like a stretch

Peter

BTW, I just heard the regulation is now along the whole US west coast now.

 

[Cold Duck]

Interesting, a state like Calif or any other can set emission requirements higher than Feds, but they cannot keep noncompliant commercial trucks from outta state off the interstate highways in Calif since that interferes with interstate commerce. Does the same apply to vessels say a tug bought in Wash then doing business in Calif? Calif has passed laws that restrict noncompliant diesel trucks from idling in the port areas waiting to pick up containers. I would contend that violates interstate commerce ie from boat to truck then interstate, but appears Calif has got past that hurdle here. I bought a Datsun diesel truck back in the '80s that was illegal (noncompliant) with Calif emissions restrictions (and illegal to sell in Calif) by having it bought new in Texas by someone, then driven to Calif and sold as a used vehicle with under 1000 miles on it. Totally legal. (I didn't initiate this but found out when I went to buy a diesel truck and couldn't find a new one that complied with Calif restrictions at the time). I suspect similar issues apply to boats which will have bigger issues as you can have a vessel operating in a state that isn't even documented in the country much less the state.

 

[mvweebles]

BTW, I just heard the regulation is now along the whole US west coast now.

I wouldn't worry about it re: pleasure craft. CARB has a long history of dealing with commercial vessel emissions including compensating owners for the work required. When this happened 30+ years ago, most of the commercial fishermen were happy to have a glide path out of fishing in their old rickety WW2 era boats. My guess is this is a very narrow focus.

Peter

 

[OldDan1943]

It is a long road before they get to you and me. Don’t worry about it.

 

[ENGRX2]

It is a long road before they get to you and me. Don’t worry about it.

From a guru to a newbie, I'll take that advice.

 

[tiltrider1]

Interesting, a state like Calif or any other can set emission requirements higher than Feds, but they cannot keep noncompliant commercial trucks from outta state off the interstate highways in Calif since that interferes with interstate commerce. Does the same apply to vessels say a tug bought in Wash then doing business in Calif? Calif has passed laws that restrict noncompliant diesel trucks from idling in the port areas waiting to pick up containers. I would contend that violates interstate commerce ie from boat to truck then interstate, but appears Calif has got past that hurdle here. I bought a Datsun diesel truck back in the '80s that was illegal (noncompliant) with Calif emissions restrictions (and illegal to sell in Calif) by having it bought new in Texas by someone, then driven to Calif and sold as a used vehicle with under 1000 miles on it. Totally legal. (I didn't initiate this but found out when I went to buy a diesel truck and couldn't find a new one that complied with Calif restrictions at the time). I suspect similar issues apply to boats which will have bigger issues as you can have a vessel operating in a state that isn't even documented in the country much less the state.

Washington and Oregon have adopted California’s regulations so now you can’t buy a diesel RV pusher in Wa, Or or Ca because they don’t meet Ca’s new rules. In other words California now controls 5 states.

While you can drive your non compliant commercial vehicle on California interstates, you can not drive it on California Port properties. So no container pick ups for non compliant Rigs.

 

[OldDan1943]

Soon Calif will isolate itself from the world.

The key is, no black smoke.
Maybe carry enough fuel to traverse California without stopping? (chuckle)

 

[Jeff F]

Soon Calif will isolate itself from the world.

Here is a list of other states that have adopted CARB standards for vehicles. It's not exactly California in isolation.

• Connecticut
• Delaware
• Maine
• Maryland
• Massachusetts
• New Jersey
• New Mexico
• New York
• Oregon
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Island
• Vermont
• Washington

 

[Cold Duck]

Washington and Oregon have adopted California’s regulations so now you can’t buy a diesel RV pusher in Wa, Or or Ca because they don’t meet Ca’s new rules. In other words California now controls 5 states.

My cuz has a 40’ pusher RV on a Frieghtliner chassis and DMV now declares it a truck. California DMV will not renew his registration (been registered in California for 20 years) unless it is tested and meets CARB standards. CARB nor any diesel dealer knows how to test or what these standards are. He has until October next year to get it figured out or his registration is void. This is what happens when one government agency interprets another agencies rules in ways not intended by the first agency.